* Thomas Huth (thuth@xxxxxxxxxx) wrote:
> On 09/03/2025 19.55, Pierrick Bouvier wrote:
> > On 6/3/24 05:18, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> > > On Fri, May 31, 2024 at 06:47:45AM +0200, Thomas Huth wrote:
> > > > On 30/05/2024 09.45, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
> > > > > We are trying to unify all qemu-system-FOO to a single binary.
> > > > > In order to do that we need to remove QAPI target specific code.
> > > > >
> > > > > @dump-skeys is only available on qemu-system-s390x. This series
> > > > > rename it as @dump-s390-skey, making it available on other
> > > > > binaries. We take care of backward compatibility via deprecation.
> > > > >
> > > > > Philippe Mathieu-Daudé (4):
> > > > > hw/s390x: Introduce the @dump-s390-skeys QMP command
> > > > > hw/s390x: Introduce the 'dump_s390_skeys' HMP command
> > > > > hw/s390x: Deprecate the HMP 'dump_skeys' command
> > > > > hw/s390x: Deprecate the QMP @dump-skeys command
> > > >
> > > > Why do we have to rename the command? Just for the sake of it? I think
> > > > renaming HMP commands is maybe ok, but breaking the API in QMP is something
> > > > you should consider twice.
> > >
> > > That was going to be my question too. Seems like its possible to simply
> > > stub out the existing command for other targets.
> > >
> > > The renaming is just window dressing.
> > >
> >
> > Working on single-binary topic means specificities from every qemu
> > binary/ architecture has to be merged together. Despite appearing has a
> > bad thing now, it's definitely a step forward for QEMU, and will allow
> > to enable new usages.
> >
> > The hard way is to trigger a deep refactoring, involving lengthy
> > conversations where compromises have to be found ("let's implement this
> > for all arch"). The pragmatic way is to eliminate obvious stuff.
> >
> > This command is specific to an arch, so renaming is a good and obvious
> > strategy. For the backward compatible anxious developer, another
> > strategy would be to simply declare this command if the running target
> > is s390x. But then, you create a precedent to do something that should
> > not have existed in the first place.
> >
> > +1 for the renaming, and hope that users of this command are able to
> > change a line in their script to adapt to the new command.
>
> Sorry, but no: We've got plenty of other target specific commands...
> rtc-reset-reinjection , query-sev, query-gic-capabilities, just to name some
> few. So unless you provide a patch series to rename *all* of them and
> deprecate the previous names, I don't see the point why changing just one
> single s390x command is necessary.
I'd probably agree; mind you, it wouldn't be a bad convention to
adopt in general.
For HMP, since there's no need to have a fixed schema for a command,
it would be fine to have a generic command for all architectures
that have a similar idea even if their data is very different.
Dave
> Thomas
>
--
-----Open up your eyes, open up your mind, open up your code -------
/ Dr. David Alan Gilbert | Running GNU/Linux | Happy \
\ dave @ treblig.org | | In Hex /
\ _________________________|_____ http://www.treblig.org |_______/
